Hello All,
I want to install several variants of gcc, to be specific: the trunk,
the lto branch, the MELT branch (all in the same prefix ie /usr/local)
I thought that just configuring each variant with its own program suffix
would be enough, so I configured the trunk with --program-suffix=-tr
From: "Joseph S. Myers"
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
If I write a complex double constant -3.I (as opposed to 0-3.I), what is
it supposed to evaluate to? This program:
Because GCC does not implement imaginary types, this applies unary minus
to 0.0+3.0I. Whereas 0-3.I means 0.
On Jun 8, 2009, Joe Buck wrote:
> I haven't kept careful track, but at one point you were talking about
> inhibiting some optimizations because they made it harder to keep the
> debug information precise. Is this no longer an issue?
No, it never was, it must have been some misunderstanding. I
> Pending initial (technical) approval
So... Can I get a global maintainer to approve it?
On Jun 7, 2009, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> It would be nice if it worked this way, but the dozens of patches to fix
>> -g/-g0 compile differences I posted over the last several months show
>> it's really not that simple, because the codegen IR does not tell the
>> whole story. We have kind of IR e
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 02:03:53PM -0700, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2009, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > - Performance differences over SPEC2006 and the other benchmarks
> > we keep track of.
>
> This one is trivial: none whatsoever. The generated code is the same,
> and it *must* be th
On Jun 8, 2009, Diego Novillo wrote:
> - Performance differences over SPEC2006 and the other benchmarks
> we keep track of.
This one is trivial: none whatsoever. The generated code is the same,
and it *must* be the same. Debug information must never change the
generated code, and VTA is all
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> If I write a complex double constant -3.I (as opposed to 0-3.I), what is
> it supposed to evaluate to? This program:
Because GCC does not implement imaginary types, this applies unary minus
to 0.0+3.0I. Whereas 0-3.I means 0.0 - (0.0+3.0I), a mixed r
If I write a complex double constant -3.I (as opposed to 0-3.I), what is
it supposed to evaluate to? This program:
#include
int main(void)
{
const __complex double C1 = (-3.I);
const __complex double C2 = (0-3.I);
printf ("%f %f\n", __real__ C1, __imag__ (C1));
printf ("%
Hello,
Revital1 Eres wrote:
> I get the following error while bootstrap trunk -r148275 on ppc.
Worked with r148271 on x86-64-linux.
> -I../libdecnumber../../gcc/gcc/fortran/expr.c -o fortran/expr.o
> cc1: warnings being treated as errors
> ../../gcc/gcc/fortran/expr.c: In function גgfc_simp
Hello,
I get the following error while bootstrap trunk -r148275 on ppc.
Thanks,
Revital
/home/eres/mainline_45/build/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/home/eres/mainline_45/build/./prev-gcc/
-B/usr/local/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/usr/local/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/usr/local/powerpc64-unk
Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/buildstat.html
I was looking for testsuite results to compare with on Solaris and I saw
that nearly every report for GCC 4.3.3 was done by Tom G. Christensen.
All GCC 4.3.3 reports on Solaris from one person :
i386-pc-solaris2.6 Test results: 4.3.3
i3
Dave Korn wrote:
>>> + main_identifier_node = get_identifier ("main");
>>> + ftn_main = build_decl (FUNCTION_DECL, main_identifier_node, tmp);
>>>ftn_main = build_decl (FUNCTION_DECL, get_identifier ("main"), tmp);
>>>
> I just took a second look at this. We surely didn't mean to buil
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 16:04, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> So the question is, what should I measure? Memory use for any specific
> set of testcases, summarized over a bootstrap with memory use tracking
> enabled, something else? Likewise for compile time? What else?
Some quick measurements I'd be
Alexandre Oliva writes:
>> Do you have any of them handy (memory use, compile time with release
>> checking only, etc) so that we can start the public
>> argument^H^H^H^H^H^discussion?
> I don't, really. Part of the guidance I expected was on what the
> relevant measures should be. [...]
Well
Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> @@ -3874,6 +3877,8 @@ create_main_function (tree fndecl)
>>tmp = build_function_type_list (integer_type_node, integer_type_node,
>>build_pointer_type (pchar_type_node),
>>NUL
Nicolas COLLIN writes:
> In my version DECL_SAVED_TREE is defined as :
> #define DECL_SAVED_TREE(NODE)DECL_MEMFUNC_POINTER_TO (NODE)
> I just looked at DECL_MEMFUNC and it doesn't do what I want.
> Then I don't know how to get the statements in the FUNCTION_DECL I got.
You must be worki
> I'd turn that around: There is already a version of LLVM that uses
> GCC. I don't see any way in which the FSF GCC benefits from this. And
> since this list concerns the FSF GCC...
That is not a valid turn around. We know that the existing LLVM can handle
this. We are not sure if the existing p
Hi,
i am wondering if the concepts branch/support is totally unmaintained or is
there still anyone working on it?
AFAIK, Herb Sutter quit working on the branch a while ago. As the standard is
almost finished, should'nt we more aggressively advertising/motivating some
dev's to work on this one?
In my version DECL_SAVED_TREE is defined as :
#define DECL_SAVED_TREE(NODE)DECL_MEMFUNC_POINTER_TO (NODE)
I just looked at DECL_MEMFUNC and it doesn't do what I want.
Then I don't know how to get the statements in the FUNCTION_DECL I got.
Nicolas COLLIN
Ian Lance Taylor a écrit :
Nicol
Esben Mose Hansen schrieb am Montag 27 April 2009 um 20:54:
> Hi,
>
> I have very much been looking forward to the including of the lambda part
> of C++0x. I have been playing around with the lambda branch of gcc, which
> at least superficially works well apart from assorted bugs.
>
> What can I do
Nicolas COLLIN writes:
> I want to go through the entire internal tree in GCC but I have a
> problem with functions.
> Indeed I would like to know the declarations and functions called by a
> function.
> I assume I have to go into the function's scope but I don't know how.
> I read the source cod
Hi Dearest.
I will like to invest in your country,I will like to know the proceedings of a
non-Citizen investing in your country? Actually I am contacting you
outstanding that l cannot invest in your country without an assistant from
someone from your country.
Factually I want you to advice
Hi Dearest.
I will like to invest in your country,I will like to know the proceedings of a
non-Citizen investing in your country? Actually I am contacting you
outstanding that l cannot invest in your country without an assistant from
someone from your country.
Factually I want you to advice
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Rafael Espindola wrote:
>> GMP and MPFR are required components of GCC, and every developer has to
>> deal with them. For interfacing between GCC and LLVM, the experts who'll
>> be able to answer the questions are generally going to be found on the
>> LLVM lists, no
DJ Delorie wrote:
I'm working on a VLIW coprocessor for MeP. One thing I noticed is
that sched2 won't bundle the function's RET with the insn that sets
the return value register, apparently because there's an intervening
USE of that register (insn 30 in the example below).
Is there any way arou
26 matches
Mail list logo
